spamandham

The contention was that the existence of fanatical followers somehow provides evidence of a historical Jesus. The rebuttal is a direct demonstration that there can be fanatical followers who believe based only on what they have been told and never need to have met the man at all.

The conclusion is that the original premise was flawed, and that the existence of fanatical followers provides 0 evidence for the case of a historical Jesus.

I don't consider either the HJ or MJ position to be the default. Supporters of both are equally obligated to support their cases or be dismissed. The default position is "I don't know".

Solo

This is roughly Maccoby's view with which I wholeheartedly agree. The "greater than life" status is often conferred on a leader with high dominance but low social standing who essentially fails to command large following during his lifetime. Karl Marx would be a great example of post-mortem elevation to a peerless sage of someone who in his lifetime was a nullity, ignored or dissed everywhere. Marxist devotees, who were a handful during his lifetime but swelled in numbers to millions immediately once his cigars got the better of him, believe Karl invented a unversally valid scientific "method" (historical, or dialectial materialism) by application of which nature's most hidden secrets are instantly revealed. Surely, this is a but variation of the belief in the power of Holy Spirit to procure clairvoyance, though it must be said in fairness that Karl Marx put in long hours in the library of the British Museum studying her Majesty government's spending habits.

Jiri

Amaleq13

I think I understand now. IMO, this is an extremely abbreviated version of both the psychological processes I've been referring to and the available evidence.

Try this, instead:

Some Jewish followers of an itinerant Jewish preacher came to believe, sometime after his death, that the preacher was an incarnation of God's Wisdom. Over time and distance from its origins, that veneration developed to the point that believers in this figure considered him to be divine to the point of equality with God.

Sound more plausible?

Wise Teacher -> God's Wisdom Incarnate -> Heavenly Messiah Incarnate -> God Incarnate

No Robots

Bang on, in fact. Give the man a cigar. Brings a wee tear to my eye, it does. Something about living that far North that forces a man to think, I guess. Except for rlogan, of course.

aa5874

Your assumption is immaterial. You cannot confirm anything. Your supposition is useless. The historicity of Jesus Christ must be based on substantiated information.

Many religions have fabricated their Gods, to claim Christians have no reason to fabricate their God is absurd. The OT is a glaring example of the fabrication of a God ,and even worse, the fabrication of the Universe.

aa5874

Is this a plausibility competition? I see no end to these probable scenarios. I have a few but I will not disclose them because I have no evidence to support the many possible scenarios.

It is not prudent to make one's imagination run wild when there is no evidence to support your pre-conceived notions.

Amaleq13

You still haven't read back through the relevant posts to understand the point of this discussion?

The scenario I offered is limited to the existing evidence (ie the texts related to Christianity and Q).

Good because that, unlike the scenario I have offered, would be exactly what you are protesting.

I agree but the scenario I offered involved neither an "imagination run wild" nor "pre-conceived notions".

ynquirer

There are a few websites that charge "some skeptics” in general, and in one particular instance Bruno Bauer and Arthur Drews with the belief that Pilate did not exist. Bruno Bauer’s works dealing with the topic are not easily available in English at short notice, yet Drews’ are. I have verified Arthur Drews thought Pilate to be a historical character. Now, I am reasonably convinced that no serious mythicist ever supported the view that Pilate was a fiction. I was wrong.